Q.

Maybe not in the way as is currently envisioned, but a

slightly modified version of this right was included in sub-
committee of Fundamental Rights, during the drafting of the
Constitution of India. In fact, important members like KM
Munshi, and B.R Ambedkar were strongly in favour of its
inclusion. However, following opposition from stalwarts such
as B.N Rau and Alladi Krishnaswamy Aiyar, the elements of this
right were deleted from the Chapter on Fundamental Rights.

Recently, it has been read into the rights as flowing from

Article 21, and other fundamental rights even though explicitly
not mentioned in the Constitution.

What is the Right that is being referred to above?

Q. During Emergency, Indira Gandhi pushed through a series
of constitutional changes through the 42nd Constitutional
Amendment with the primary purpose being to curtail the
power of the Constitutional Courts. Amongst the more
volatile changes, were the relatively benign change
(additions) made to the Preamble of the Constitution.

While often considered implicit in any reading of the

Constitution till then, the addition of these phrases, while
not exactly controversial was noteworthy. Two of these
phrases were the introduction of the words ‘socialist’ and
‘secular’; what was the third phrase?

{Hint:- Reference To Context}

Q. The Swarn Singh Committee was set up under the Chairmanship of Sardar
Swarn Singh, to study the ‘working of the Constitution’ during the Emergency.

Based on its recommendations, the Govt promulgated the 42nd Constitutional

Amendment, making a whole host of changes with the primary aim being to
curtail the powers of the judiciary. While many of these changes were
repealed by the 44th Constitutional Amendment under the Janata Party
Government, a specific series of provisions pertaining to Fundamental Duties
weren’t repealed, and continue till even today.

It is important to note though that all the recommended Fundamental Duties

weren’t adopted in the 42nd Constitutional Amendment, and a certain
suggested provision was left out. Recently, the Prime Minister referred to
‘punya’ accruing to a certain set of people as a consequence of performing the
specific act which was referred to in the Fundamental Duties.

What could the subject matter of the omitted provision in the suggested
Fundamental Duties be and who could the set of people referred to by the PM
be?
Q. This provision originally provided for only in the
Directive Principles of State Policy, with a mandate on the
Government to implement ‘it’ within a period of 10 years
from the date of promulgation of the Indian Constitution.

It also finds a place in the list of Fundamental Duties as

enumerated in the Constitution, and was finally ‘given the
status’ of a Fundamental Right through the 86th
Constitutional Amendment in 2002, thus imposing explicit
constitutional obligations on both the State and citizen.

What is being referred to here?

Q. Dr Ambedkar in his deposition before the Simon Commission,
had argued in favour of this ‘principle’ in the following manner

“My feeling is that every man is intelligent enough to understand

exactly what he wants. Literacy has not much bearing on this
point; a man may be illiterate, none the less he may be very
intelligent.”

This principle was adopted in India *instantly* as opposed to the

*incremental* approach adopted in other parts of the world. In
fact, millions of people exercised their rights under this principle
in 1952.

What important constitutional principle is being referred to here?

Q. Initially introduced by Parliament through the
First Constitutional Amendment as a protective
umbrella to protect measures to implement land
‘reforms’, it has since been used to protect all
kinds of legislations including the Foreign
Exchange Regulation Act. What is this measure
that is being referred to here?
Q. Curiously, this *right* is not a part of the Fundamental Rights,
despite having been in the report of the Advisory Committee’s draft
bill of rights in the Constituent Assembly.

Despite having the opportunity to do so in several cases, the

Supreme Court has refused to read in this right into existing
fundamental rights, preferring to treat it as a ‘legal right’, a privilege
of sorts – which can be taken away any time.

Over time, some suggestions have emerged on converting this

‘privilege’ into an obligation on the citizens in order to deepen the
quality of democracy in the country. Such a suggestion was adopted
by the state of Gujarat, though recently the legislation in question
was stayed by the Gujarat High Court.

What could I possible be referring to in the above paragraphs?

Q. Loosely and pejoratively known in India as
the ‘Aaya Ram, Gaya Ram’ phenomenon, this
‘act’ was made tougher under Rajiv Gandhi, and
incidentally, is far tougher to carry out in the
state of J&K.

What is this phenomenon/ act ?